Talk:Shōrinji-ryū

Clean-up

In addition to general clean-up, and citing sources, please check the spelling of Japanese/Okinawan terms used. "ryu" (りゅ) is not a Japanese word, and has no meaning. "-ryū" (りゅう) on the other hand, is a Japanese word, and depending on the context can mean dragon (竜), school/style (流), or a handful of other meanings. LordAmeth 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sakugawa Koshiki Shorinji-ryu Karate-Do is not the only Shorinji-ryu

This article can be included but should not be the definition of Shorinji-ryu User5802 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really encyclopedia-worthy tone

"...our system...we inherited...": that's personal preaching/reporting, not a factual description. 82.32.202.41 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)mchell

it still needs work, it seems. Needs to be reduced to nothing but fact, not lore.RCHM (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

This page should redirect to Shōrinjiryū Kenkōkan Karate which is properly (or at least better) referenced, content here has simply been pasted from: http://www.shorinjiryukaratedo.org/ (2005). Mountain^cirque 11:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed that copy and paste - it is all copyvio. Notability is another question.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability and sources

There are serious problems with the sourcing and notability (not existence) is in question. It appears that the references given refer to Shorin-ryu which is supposedly different. The article says this style is based on the teaching of Sakugawa Kanga but his own page only mentions Shorin-ryu. The connection is far from clear and notability needs to be addressed.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for missing that and thanks for the revert. If I get time I will search for reliable references, the link to Kanga is not entirely necessary to justify, it may be best to remove that ultimately. Mountain^cirque 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No sweat. I use tags to indicate issues needing to be addressed rather than a statement of fact - which is the intent. What got my attention was the copypaste of a non-factual essay. Surprisingly they guy who did that has generally been pretty good or at least he is now.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the references support the statements made in the article as mentioned above. I removed them all and put an unreferenced tag.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)